2014 Power Units

I think i'm right in saying the ERS, the actual "engine" and all the associated ancillaries are counted as the "power unit" as a whole, so if ERS fails then thats it for the whole unit, it can't be used at all if one component of the power unit fails, i think its an attempt to increase the life of some of the smaller parts/ancillaries and thus save costs, with only 5 power units a season your in trouble if there's a fundamental reliability issue thats for sure! (IndyCar 2012 & endless penalties anyone?)

Road car relevence is a PR tactic mostly, there may be some transfer from F1 but most transfer will be TO F1.

My issue is that road cars are boring (bar some exotics, and even they are getting boring) compared to race cars. Road cars are made to last a long time; they are tuned for low maintenance; they are designed to display sedate behaviour; they are increasingly developed to accommodate people who cannot muster the co-ordination to use a manual transmission or parallel park; they are designed to be so quiet the regulators are now thinking of requiring "noise makers" to promote pedestrian safety; they are designed for comfort rather than maximum alertness; and on and on. They are boring.

Frankly I don't want F1 to be road relevant, far from it. I have watched F1 for almost 40 years and I am ever grateful that there was little to no road car relevance. People pick a few examples of possible road car technology transfer and forget the larger F1 picture - the teams needs guys with laptops to start the engines (after the engines have been pre-conditioned to start), the driver cannot buckle his own seat harness; he must remove the steering wheel to enter and exit the vehice; there are no passive restraints such as air bags; the rear view mirrors (historically a true race-to-road transfer) are as good as useless; the tires are so "road useless" that they must be changed during the race and certainly if it starts (or stops) raining; KERS batteries are changed after each race; etc., etc.

So, if you want road car relevance step up to the plate - require all weather tires that last a season (imagine the tech transfer potential there!); engine and batteries must last at least a season (let's get serious about this for road cars); the driver must be able to start the car all by himself; let's require racing in sub-zero temperatures (after all many of us live in such climates); etc. If you're serious about road relevance then stop pretending and get serious! If you're satisfied by some small arcane issue then any kind of competition will do the job.

While each car currently has a limit of eight engines for the season, in 2014 this limit will drop to five “power units,” to include not just the traditional block we know as the engine but “all ancilliaries, any energy recovery systems and all actuation systems.” So, for the avoidance of doubt, a failure on any element of the “power unit” which requires a change, means that’s one of your allocation of five.

I just have to say I don't understand the need for the reliability reg of 5 units, the fuel limitation and the rpm limit. I'd like them to drop the rpm limitation, it just seems redundant.

Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.

Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.

It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.

Money, money and money! In the long term it'll save bags of money, maybe not the RPM limit (guess thats to help slow the cars down) but its right that the FIA continue to try and curb teams spending, to paraphrase "Hot Fuzz" its for the greater good.

Probably there is a RPM limit because some teams would prefer to take the grid penalty and run an engine with a higher RPM that would last only 1gp but would be significantly faster.

It also limits the amount of learning and development which will be useful to their roadcar divisions, which I thought was the point of the formula. I'd rather see a cap on spending than a cap on rpm.

Why do you think it limits the learning and development?

The teams (as i understand it) are still allowed to improve the reliability & efficiency of the engines during the season, there will still be masses of R&D work carried out to improve the engines for future seasons as well which would help with their understanding for road car side of things.

The teams (as i understand it) are still allowed to improve the reliability & efficiency of the engines during the season, there will still be masses of R&D work carried out to improve the engines for future seasons as well which would help with their understanding for road car side of things.

It limits the development of the engine. It's not like someone is going to discover a way to make them 90% efficient. Even if someone found a way to turn heat directly into energy there are too many losses in an ICE. But having fuel flow limits and life limits on the engine should be restriction enough. I'm sure they'll be plenty of opportunities to learn and develop the ERS, but the actual lump will see little development in this formula. But perhaps that is the point, the manufacturers feel they've already gotten the most out of the old combustion engine.

It limits the development of the engine. It's not like someone is going to discover a way to make them 90% efficient. Even if someone found a way to turn heat directly into energy there are too many losses in an ICE. But having fuel flow limits and life limits on the engine should be restriction enough. I'm sure they'll be plenty of opportunities to learn and develop the ERS, but the actual lump will see little development in this formula. But perhaps that is the point, the manufacturers feel they've already gotten the most out of the old combustion engine.

Well, i respectfully disagree. It's a completely new unit that the teams haven't even scratched the surface of yet in terms of learning and development. I still can't see how you think limiting RPM will affect development, honestly i don't get the logic.

Well, i respectfully disagree. It's a completely new unit that the teams haven't even scratched the surface of yet in terms of learning and development. I still can't see how you think limiting RPM will affect development, honestly i don't get the logic.

Gfhuus, 80s turbos used to be also I4. I don't think the layout is a real problem (though I'd wish they make it free), lack of power is imho. Though we can hope that V6s will sound better than I4s would.

Can't say I wasn't happy when they announced the I4=>V6 thing though. As a tech enthusiast, I'd love to see unrestricted layouts since that would make following the off-track development race more exciting. Still, if it's at the expense of on-track excitement, which is what the strict regulations try to ensure, I can easily settle for less. My heart rate was a lot higher during Brazilian GP than FPs where Lotus was testing it's DRS thingie.

I'm not concerned about the lack of power, though it's partly because I'm more or less blindly believing the claims that torque increases.

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.

I don't know whether or not your an engine engineer/technician/whatever but i'm not so i can't comment on the specifics but i highly doubt it the worlds top engine manufacturers would of been happy with the new engine rules if they could not develop and learn from the new generation engines. Why would they go to the initial expense and hassle if there's nothing to garner from the rule change?

I don't know whether or not your an engine engineer/technician/whatever but i'm not so i can't comment on the specifics but i highly doubt it the worlds top engine manufacturers would of been happy with the new engine rules if they could not develop and learn from the new generation engines. Why would they go to the initial expense and hassle if there's nothing to garner from the rule change?

Marketing.Beating one another and winning titles will always be good for the image, no matter what engine they have. But there are only a very few companies/manufacturers that can afford and are willing to go all in with the necessary investment and expenditure.

You know I remember being flabbergasted when I learned that four valves per cylinder and blown engines existed pre WWII. The greatest three things to happen to engines in the last 30 years are computer aided machining, fuel injection and electronics. Everything else is pretty much the same. Excluding material science of course.

Do you really think there is a crossover between a race engine and a road car engine? They are totally different beasts.

Having worked for a car maker (nothing cool, just translating manuals) that had a pretty extensive LMP project at that time, I can assure you that there is much more road-relevant stuff going on than I'd have ever imagined. Still, I don't really see that with the new regs. If they'd gone with the I4 world engine instead, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.

I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.

They don't need to. It's called reliability engineering. That's how its relevant.

Well we have the Proton owned Lotus team. Proton reliability. Words not normally found without "un" inbetween I would suspect.

We have Volkswagen at Le Mans with Audi and Porsche. Volkswagen think it is a good idea to sell a basic hatchback with a 7 speed semi-automatic gearbox and a turbo- and super-charged little engine. What could possibly go wrong in 5 years time! Toyotas and Hondas might be bland, but at least they keep it simple, if antiquated, to maximize reliability... And so we have Volkswagen having to resort to 10 year powertrain warranties to satisfy disappointed customers in China, where they were a very popular and respected brand.

Not to mention Citroen. In places far away from France, such as Australia, owning a Citroen is considered a non-trivial exercise, often involving importing your own parts from Europe. Unfortunately in the business of (not) selling cars they have got themselves in a predicament where they are too much like a Toyota for Australian Citroen enthusiasts, and not enough like a Toyota (i.e., reliable) for other car buyers. How unfortunate!

I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.

I thought they would lose the separate button and have the electric power blend into overall power output automatically via the throttle pedal and some electronics. At least that was the case in some earlier version of the rule drafts, not sure if it has changed.

I can not imagine a direct 'push-to-boost' control for the ERS turbine mapping but rather a dial which enables varios settings plus a 'Kers'-button to allow the driver to tramit the available energy into the driveshaft.

I thought they would lose the separate button and have the electric power blend into overall power output automatically via the throttle pedal and some electronics. At least that was the case in some earlier version of the rule drafts, not sure if it has changed.

If it was all done via the throttle pedal, I can see some possible complications.

If the driver pushes it to the floor, does that cause the ERS to kick in? If so, it could cause wheelspin by being activated too early. If electronics prevented that happening, you would have a kind of traction control. But apart from that, the driver will surely always be a better judge of when to use it (tactically) than the most sophisticated electronics.

Maybe the best solution would be to have an activation/deactivation button or switch, but to allow the throttle pedal to control the amount of power delivered?

I can not imagine a direct 'push-to-boost' control for the ERS turbine mapping but rather a dial which enables varios settings plus a 'Kers'-button to allow the driver to tramit the available energy into the driveshaft.

That's a possibility, but I think drivers would prefer to control the power via the throttle pedal. Otherwise they could find themselves having to lift off the throttle because they dialled too much ERS, saving fuel but using up ERS, which would often be a poor tactical choice.

There has been talk of Ferrari cutting a deal on engines in return for a seat for Bianchi, but Force India will have to reflect carefully on this as all the signs are that the Mercedes will be the dominant new generation engine in 2014 and they’d be mad to give that up.

If it was all done via the throttle pedal, I can see some possible complications.

If the driver pushes it to the floor, does that cause the ERS to kick in? If so, it could cause wheelspin by being activated too early. If electronics prevented that happening, you would have a kind of traction control. But apart from that, the driver will surely always be a better judge of when to use it (tactically) than the most sophisticated electronics.

Maybe the best solution would be to have an activation/deactivation button or switch, but to allow the throttle pedal to control the amount of power delivered?

As far as I'm aware ERS is disabled by various means under certain speeds. For instance, you never see KERS activated by a F1 driver at the start under a certain speed limit (somewhere around 90-100 kph); the Williams flywheel KERS in the Porsche GT3-R hybrid and the Audi R18 e-tron is only enabled over 120 kph; the KERS on the Toyota TS030 operates only at speeds over 80-90 kph. The latter two are most likely activated automatically through the throttle. Teams calculate at what speed the driving wheels are no longer grip-limited under power, and the KERS/ERS would only operate above that speed.

Tis not the first time I've seen Allen make bold sweeping statements like this with nothing (apparent) to back it up.

So although I'd love that to be the case, I defintitly wont take his word on it.

Well, I think it's simply a combination of them already having strong engines, having a good reputation in that field & of course the recent event they hosted for journos where they showed off an early build of their new engine. On this latter point - having an event already could be perceived as a fairly confident think to do and guzzling Reisling all day while cooing at a dyno simulation will have had some effect.

The truth is probably that most of the journos and certainly all of us are not well versed enough in the operations of each company. They don't know the standard of engineers working on the project, when they really started, how much cash is committed & the importance of being #1 to each team. Classic 1+1 = 3 stuff really and you can come up with a story to suit every manufacturer.

I mean, let me just throw into the ring the fact that Ferrari do not like to lose, they are no stranger to engines and contrary to popular belief they most certainly could apply this knowledge over to a whole raft of road cars. They've also had well documented failings developing aero in recent years and so would love an opportunity to get ahead of the opposition by applying their strengths. Just my 2c though...

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.

With so many rules regarding the design of the engine, rev limits etc. and the fact that they all have more than enough experience of building engines I don't think anyone will have a real advantage in this area.

I think Renault & Mercedes power units will be ahead of Ferrari power units because they have much more knowledge and experience with 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines. Let's wait and see.

Turbo charging is well understood by all now. It's no rocket science.The true innovation and challenge is the area of Turbo Compounding where kinetic and heat recovery systems are coupled to the turbo function.The challenge will be to manage and deploy the kinetic, heat and combustion energy in the most efficient way.

I think the RPM limit is part of the cost-cutting, if the engines are allowed to rev as high as they want, a lot of money can be spent on enabling very high revs without losing reliability. Of course the limits on boost pressure and fuel flow will tend to limit revs anyway, but a car which had a tow from cars in front + ERS + DRS could still hit very high revs.

I don't like it because limiting RPM is IMO a major cause of the overtaking problem which has given us the DRS 'fix'.

Does anyone know how the ERS will be controlled by the driver? Presumably the driver will still have the choice of when to use it, since it won't be available all the time.

You have to consider the worst case which is Spa, 70% on throttle on a 110 seconds lap, which means 77 seconds.

So drivers will be 44 seconds without ERS while full throttling.Therefore the controls will be just like KERS is this year.